Видео

what an idiot philosopher , toxic alpha male? what in the fook is toxic alpha male?

Bottom G for sure. Behind all that materialistic facade i see a deeply traumatised and empty narcissist. And he is a role model for many young men truly an unfortunate situation

I finally read it a few months ago but was underwhelmed compared to other of Hesse's novels. But the incel angle was completely lost on me but sounds intriguing. So maybe worth a reread…

Good video

Saw it in the theatre when it came out and bought the soundtrack. It's probably time for a re-watch.

Its a secret too!

I"am agree with the selection, I would add; Steppe wolf and Demian ( Jung theory) by Hermann Hesse, and Doctor Faustus and Death in Veneci ( The travel from Apollonius to Dionisio-A master adaptation of the Origin of the tragedy by Nietzsche).

full video: ruclips.net/video/xHuzURRH-zU/видео.html

Top G or Bottom G, what's your take on Andrew Tate?

ruclips.net/video/XYKOz_V4SPI/видео.html

ALL PHILOSOPHY IS RUBBISH

What do you folks think of this commentary format, is it more engaging or maybe overrated?

NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

I decided to repost this video because I felt it needed some corrections. Have you heard of this movie? What do you think of my analysis?

Let me know what you think about the idea of a series where I introduce some of the most important topics in philosophy. If you have any particular questions, feel free to ask, and I'll try to cover them in future videos!

Would probably add that "formal philosophy" is part of analytic philosophy. That is, analytic philosophy is known for using formal philosophical methods. The "clarity" and "rigor"analytic philosophy is known for, partially comes from this.

Good video. Would have loved to see a specific mention of the routledge introductory series, those books are fantastic. Also Philpapers should be mentioned as THE place to search for stuff. If you search for big topics on philpapers like metaethics, they also have a cool summary, introductory works and key works section that greatly helps beginners. Still overall good video!

Great video! Substance and hook- Consider the marketing/ engagement side of your video. For example the virtues of sport like perseverance can be a great opener because 1. it is relatable 2. It explains the concept and then you may go into details like history or ethics The picture of the old dude with the Olympic torch could be a great thumbnail Style- maybe you can think about the way you talk, it can come across as slow and a little boring. Maybe you don't need to change the way you speak , maybe some pictures will help Retention- You can ask some questions at the end of your elevator pitch to boost engagement. Maybe you can touch on some interesting concepts like ethics in sports Clickbait- click bait is not bad as long as you can back it up with substance I am NOT trying to discourage or judge you. I hope you can learn something from my comment and maybe we'll even have a discussion Keep up the great work!

Are you a kinesiology student?

Clearly, the only concept of god being considered in this discussion is that of monotheism, more specifically, anthropomorphic monotheism. The subtle references to 'he' or 'him' make my point. I personally am of the opinion that 'god' is an entirely human construct, and any attempt to describe what 'god' might be is about as useless as an ashtray on a motorcycle. All life on earth is merely dust in the wind, and we humans are as likely to know what god is as a squirrel does. Just my opinion of course.🤔

yet the adulation reflects more the manifestation of our primitive brain, more than anything else, especially our instinctual compulsion to be tribal. i don't think it makes sense to elevate it. simply explain it from biological terms.

If you want to base your morality on the idea of suffering and pleasure, you are free to do so. But why enforce your morality on others? Do you like it when believers of religions try to convince you to their faith? By proposing to fight people who eat meat, are you any different from a radical religious leader who postulates fighting, for example, ho mo people?

Only human meat eaters, or all carnivorous animals, plants, and fungi? Wasps and hornets are pretty brutal. A dozen hornets can destroy an entire honeybee colony (>10K individuals) in just a couple of hours. Honeybees are intelligent, vegan, and entirely beneficial. In the case of honeybees (unlike destructive caterpillars), hornets are not performing a useful service. Hornets, however, kill quickly, unlike many parasitic wasps.

Poor fools. It will not go well for you. Moreover, you're entirely misguided in your "compassion". This is a world of devour or be devoured. "Fighting meat eaters" is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. What you should fight is stupidity. Cruelty is a form of stupidity of the moral faculty. You should fight that as well. But being stupid and thinking you are compassionate is not going to workout for anyone, including any animals that are being cruelly slaughtered. As to the environment. You know virtually nothing of what you speak.

some great picks!

thanks for introducing me to ferdydurke and solaris

I would say: 1/Ignore this guy's advice. 2/ Go away and think about the thing that interests you, and try to arrive at your own philosophy. 3\ If you get as far as you can, then research the specific things that you cannot quite grasp. 4/ Remember that philosophical literature is huge pile of manure, there are some gems hidden in it to be sure, but you will have to dig for them. Incidentally the common cold is NOT an infection, it is a phenomenological occurrence. "Infection" is the theory of what causes it.

With a last name this you have to be Bayern or Barca fan, right? 😂

"Meat Eaters" Have way more protein in their diet, I think they win in a fight. If you mean the other kind of "Meat Eaters" then that is considered a hate crime in 2024. All in all I'd say don't make your dietary decisions your personality. It's kinda like people that make their sexuality their entire personality, it's much better to just have things like that be a fun quirk for those that know you rather than being something you shout from the rooftops. Altruism really isn't something that should be done for clout

There is a far more important angle to consider this not just as an ethical problem but, rather, as an EPISTOMOLOGICAL one. Strange though it may sound, this is a real possibility. Assume that vegans succeed in convincing all humans on this earth, without even a single exception, to become vegans. Yet this is not going to end predation per se on this earth, as the animal predators (lions, tigers,....) would still continue to eat other animals. But if we assume nature has a VIRTUE based design of particle structural compulsion that accurate mathematical formula for integrating arithmetic, geometry and particle physics by deriving what particles correspond to DIGITS, with which we calculate in our minds ~ not the electrons in the chips we ourslves make ~ with the 4 arithmetic operations as the only LAWS OF MOTION for all interactions among them, can only be derived by setting eradication of predation in animals too as the ultimate goal of all knowledge, and if that resultant knowledge enables PREVENTION of all EVIL, instead of their PREDICTION, the ultimate goal of current science, then it would be 100% proof that nature is ethically geared to this realization (eradication of predation in animal kingdom too, by deriving the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface, to then deliver and sustain living beings here through them). Such knowledge alone can enable us to compel all animal predators too to start surviving on food from plants only, in addition to compelling other omnivore cohumans, without having any necessity to preach ~ simply by influencing development of, and growth on, plants by programming the (gaseous, liquid and solid) substances each person relases to the surrounding, i.e. programming and operating the plants just the same way as we operate our electronic devices with remote control devices at present. Evil, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH.

I'll be eating meat the day my coffin goes in the ground.....

As Russell said, there are no answers only questions and processes.

The myth of Sisyphus by Camus.

Good stuff. Consider It’s electricity and magnetism. Terrence Howard is talking about it. His Joe Rogan experience appearances are astounding. He shows new shapes

Six Months in 1977 by Kit McQuinn…😊

Ogólnie zastanawia mnie, czemu filozofia w sumie ogranicza się jedynie do myśli zachodniej... Filozofia chińska kończy się na Konfucjuszu, i nie wiem, czy to nie z tego powodu, że taki Laozi jest asocjowany z ruchem religijnym, czy coś... A pretty sure, że tak traktuje się całą indyjską tradycję filozoficzną, bo przecież każdy tam był praktykującym yoginem, co jest kryterium dyskwalifikującym z bycia filozofem. No, więc wylewam swoją frustrację w nadziei, że poruszysz wątek cokolwiek :). Quality vid btw

Imagine: You making up a pink elephant. Then tell someone about it. Next ask quation that person : " what is a hight of elephant?". Next after hundreds years of seeking " truth " one can tell... man what you talking about? Or more precisely " you can not find, prove or describe concept - they are only in your mind". As simple as that. Amen.

What is a philosopher? Do they have to hold an academic pedigree? Can anyone question reality without ending up a rambling stoner or deranged mental patient? lol idk but this was a very well made video. You clearly know what you’re talking about and that type of mastery is always fun to see.

Tesla said when science starts studying non physical phenomena we will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of our existence, you can experience these non physical phenomena via ayahuasca and dmt,you will instantly start questioning our reality.

If we set PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF ALL EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH) as the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge, then whatever assumptions as to existences that enable achieving this goal would be the 100% accurate answer to this historic question (what is reality?) forever. Not realizing this fact that "purpose free search for knowledge would lead us nowhere" is the reason why human race as a whole, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking and still continuing, is yet to derive the mathematical model of the mechanism for even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when it could harm life function, let alone PREVENT such. When one doesn't know where one wants to go no road can be wrong, neither can any be right. That has always been (and still, of course, IS) the fate of all hitherto search for knowledge of the entire human race, with the ideal : KNOWLEDGE FOR ITS OWN SAKE OUT OF CURIOSITY.

If we set PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF ALL EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH) as the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge, then whatever assumptions as to existences that enable achieving this goal would be the 100% accurate answer to this historic question forever. Not realizing this fact that "purpose free search for knowledge would lead us nowhere" is the reason why human race as a whole, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking and still continuing, is yet to derive the mathematical model of the mechanism for even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when it could harm life function, let alone PREVENT such. When one doesn't know where one wants to go no road can be wrong, neither can any be right. That has always been (and still, of course, IS) the fate of all hitherto search for knowledge of the entire human race, with the ideal : KNOWLEDGE FOR ITS OWN SAKE OUT OF CURIOSITY.

The nature of reality is as such it shouldn't be questioned reality is our surroundings we accept it the human mind is not able to comprehend it for once in philosophy there must be acceptance regarding a topic and no questions asked. We all shall have our own perceptions and accept each other as their own for everyone has their own reality.

bros surname is lewandowski

Chicken

0:40 "It is true that from a biological standpoint we are either born as females or males" well, that isn't so obvious, yes, gametes are either an egg or a sperm cell, but we don't view humans this way, when someone does not produce gametes we don't look at them as not having sex. When we look at genitals there are possibilities for humans to have a in-between genitals (2-5 on the Quigley scale). When we look at chromosomes there is a possibility of humans having XXX, XXY or XYY chromosomes. I came across arguments that these are anomalies, and therefore shouldn't be taken into account, but this is simply not how things work, if you say you can classify humans into 2 distinct categories, then come across humans that you can't, you can't just dismiss this, this means that you can't classify humans into 2 distinct categories. To clarify, I'm not saying that sex doesn't exists or anything like that, I'm saying, that even in humans, things aren't so simple and require discussion. 0:56 "it is a fact that in our language we have only a possibility to refer to someone as either male or female" well, both in English and Polish (to languages that I believe we have in common) you can refer to someone in a different way, in English you can use singular "they" to refer to a person of an unknown gender or to a person who does not wish to be referred too by either he or she and this has been in use at least since Shakespireian times and in Polish you do have the neuter form, not to mention other languages that have such capabilities. 1:06 the medical term used is "Gender dysphoria", the word dysmorphia is used to refer to "Body dysmorphia", this of course doesn't invalidate any claim but I just wanted to specify that. 1:59 This is not the only reason that we see sex and gender as different things/why we view gender as a social construct, gender does not only refer to ones belief as to what gender they are, but to the whole social construction around sex/gender, such as gender roles, there isn't a biological (sex based) reason as to why women should for example, wear dresses while men should wear pants. You do mention different cultural behavior later but I don't know why you didn't mention it here. Why doesn't gender affect society in your graph, and what do you mean when saying society? Why do you claim that saying that gender is a social construct oversimplifies reality? Something being a social construct doesn't mean it's not real, or that it is totally unaffected/unbased by/in the physical reality, money, as an example is a social construct, yet it very much does so. I do agree with your division into Psychological and Social gender, but that division doesn't mean that gender cannot be a social construct. What do "unverifiable gender identities" mean? How does one verify a gender identity? Yes, having a non-binary gender identity is a way to cope, with having a non-binary gender identity, claiming that such identities are unverifiable, while saying unverified claims that this is a way of coping with facing difficulties in social situations, feeling of validation or seeking external validation, as having and expressing ones non-binary identity leads to the opposite in conservative societies/communities . "Imposing subjective beliefs about gender on society goes against the principle of tolerance" Could you expand on that point? Also, I have to mention, this may be purely my overanalysis due to having to much time seeing bad arguments, but some of your comments about people/scientists seeing gender as a social construct seem a little bit petty. I hope that my comment doesn't come in as an attack, as I see that you are honest and non-aggressive in your argumentation and I hope that we can have a fruitful discussion.

Zeno's Paradoxes are amongst the best examples of thought experiment.

I suggest readings by and about Bertrand Russell. His Problems of Philosophy is short and his History of Western Philosophy is long, but both are worthwhile. About Bertrand Russell may be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which also includes links to many topics.

Subtle Programming This might sound insane but I believe that there's an active effort to shape our thinking by influencing our subconscious. I believe this is done by adding some frames to videos in movies, music etcetera that are not part of the movie or music but are instead propaganda material. These frames are just long enough to be noticed subconsciously but not long enough for your conscious mind to register. This form of mind programming might be more effective than the outright propaganda in the media because one does not realize it and as such does not resist. One might only notice it in dreams as the subconscious mind does its job of filtering relevant to irrelevant information

keanu

Pretty hot guy (no homo)